Should I pay extra for TIFF when having old slides scanned, and what should I use to convert TIFF to JPEG?
Asked 1/27/2021
1 views
2 answers
0
I’m having 1000+ old family slides scanned by a service. Their standard option is JPEG, and the higher option is 3200×4800 JPEG. For 30% extra they also offer TIFF. Support says the TIFFs are 8-bit files saved directly from scanner processing, the scanner CCD captures 12-bit data, and their delivered JPEGs are saved at 95% quality. They say TIFF and JPEG are visually indistinguishable, and TIFF mainly matters if I want to do further editing.
Given that, is it worth paying extra for TIFF for archiving, or is the 95% JPEG likely enough? And if I do get TIFFs, does it matter what software I use to batch-convert them to JPEG, or will most software produce similar results if the settings are comparable?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
5y ago
2 Answers
2
Let's assume there is some image data that is going to be stored as a JPEG file and also as a TIFF file.
JPEG is a lossy image file format. Even at 100% quality (whatever that means), the JPEG encoding process discards image information in order to reduce the file size. Many computer scientists have spent many years refining the JPEG compression algorithm such that the image information that is lost (in a high quality encode) doesn't generally have any real impact on an average person's impression of or satisfaction with the result.
TIFF is a widely-supported lossless image file format. Relative to the image data fed into the TIFF encoding process, no image data is discarded. So, if you use TIFF, your conscience can rest easy that you didn't opt for a lossy encode. Can you see any difference between the TIFF file and a high quality JPEG? Probably not. If you are then just going to encode the TIFF file to JPEG, is there any point in paying more for the TIFF? Probably not.
(Note: I'm not addressing the situation where you want to further edit the images. In that case, there can be an argument for choosing TIFF over JPEG, certainly if the TIFF has a higher bit depth than the JPEG.)
There is of course a massive difference between opting for JPEGs with a resolution of 3200 x 4800 over ones with a resolution of 512 x 340 pixels. I think I can quite confidently say, don't choose the lower resolution option for this project!
You can think of audio files as an analogy. You can save audio data as an uncompressed WAV file, as a 320 kbps compressed MP3 file and as a 96kbps compressed MP3 file. The 320kbps file is a lossy format - audio data has been discarded. But it's high quality compression. Can you hear the difference between this file and the lossless WAV file? Probably not. Can you hear the difference between the 320 kbps file and the 96 kbps file? Probably yes. The latter file has much greater compression, at the cost of sacrificing quality. Do you want to pay extra for a lossless format (over a high quality lossy format), only to then just go and compress it to a lossy format? I don't really see the rationale for that.
Addendum: Note that while a scanner may allow access to its raw image data, for most users this isn't a useful format to have images in. Scanner manufacturers (like digital camera manufacturers) make it simple for their hardware device to output images in a widely-supported file format. It's probably not useful for you to start requesting raw scanner data. High-quality, "first-generation" scanned images, saved in a widely-supported file format are what you want.
Originally by user38159. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user38159
5y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
If their delivered TIFFs are only 8-bit, the scanner’s 12-bit capture doesn’t help you much in the final files. In that case, the choice is mostly lossless TIFF vs high-quality lossy JPEG.
A 95% JPEG is usually very close visually to the source and is often good enough for family-slide archiving and normal viewing/printing. The bigger issue is probably the scan quality itself—exposure, color, dust removal, contrast—not TIFF vs JPEG.
TIFF is most useful if you expect to do significant further editing, or if you want the reassurance of keeping a lossless master. If not, the extra 30% may not be worth it.
For conversion, most software will give similar results if you use similar JPEG settings. JPEG is a standard; differences are mostly in quality level, chroma subsampling, and any resizing/sharpening done during export. If you use GIMP or ImageMagick, they’re fine. Export at high quality and avoid repeated re-saving of JPEGs.
So: for simple archiving and sharing, the service’s 95% JPEGs are likely enough. Pay for TIFF only if you want maximum editing flexibility or a lossless archive master.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI5y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
How do I export scanned TIFF files to JPEG in Lightroom without any extra adjustments?
Is it worth paying extra for TIFF scans instead of JPEG when scanning 35mm negatives?
Should I save scanned 35mm slides as JPEG or TIFF for archiving?
Why does my NEF-to-TIFF conversion look different from the camera JPEG, and how can I make it closer?
Can Lightroom 3 import or view multi-page TIFF files?